Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different (Read 114955 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #225
...Also, I don't think I have ever met an audiophile who would object to a controlled, double blind test.

http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listen...ditorial?page=1
Quote
Blind Listening Tests are Flawed: An Editorial
...
The answer is that blind listening tests fundamentally distort the listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a certain phenomenon.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #226
My two cents: Double-blind ABX tests are useless because they're aren't measuring what's important.

It doesn't matter if a person can identify whether X is A or B. What matters is how much pleasure they derive from A or B. A useful blind test would be to have a person enter in on a keypad how much they're enjoying the music (say on a 1-5 scale) from time to time. Whether they were listening to A or B wouldn't be known to them. Over time, if their scores indicated they were significantly happier when listening to A than B, then there is both a difference between A and B *for that person* and A is preferable. Extend it to a reasonable sample over a long enough period of time, and you may be able to conclude that most people enjoy listening to A more than B. More likely, you'll find some people consistently prefer A over B, but most people don't care.

I think audiophilia is fundamentally neurotic. Audiophiles hear things that irritate them that most people can't or aren't aware of. The irritation stirs them to do something about it. The great variation in equipment and cables suggests that people lack the tools to identify the source of the irritation, and so resort to trying lots of different things, each of which bring their own annoyances. Other people capitalize on it and voila, the audiophile market is born.

That said, I can hear the difference between my stereo speakers and my computer speakers. I usually, yet not always, prefer the former to the latter, but some recordings sound best in a car at high speed. Most of my friends say, however, there's not much of difference, and they don't care.

When I played sax, I could tell the difference between types of reeds and whether the ligature was tightened on the top or bottom. The vast majority of people can't; most can't tell the difference between a tenor or an alto playing the same note. Few could identify which was which in a blind test.

But that doesn't prove doodly even if you publish it in the AES Journal.


Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #227
My two cents: Double-blind ABX tests are useless because they're aren't measuring what's important.
Hold it right there. You're fundamentally missing the point. Double-blind tests prove exactly one thing: that there is a perceptible difference between two (or more) choices, and it quantifies the likelihood that the difference was actually perceived and not just the result of random guessing.

The usefulness of DBT is when comparing two pieces of hardware that are supposed to sound identical. This had critical implications when developing MP3, as the aim of the development was to produce a signal that was indistinguishable from the original. Around this premise, Hydrogenaudio was born. Keeping that in mind, we require that all statements about audio quality be scientifically-verifiable. If you don't want to play by those rules, you can leave and enjoy your audio as much as you like.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #228
My two cents: Double-blind ABX tests are useless because they're aren't measuring what's important.

It doesn't matter if a person can identify whether X is A or B. What matters is how much pleasure they derive from A or B. A useful blind test would be to have a person enter in on a keypad how much they're enjoying the music (say on a 1-5 scale) from time to time. ...

How can B give me more enjoyment than A if I cant distinguish them?

-k

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #229
Actually, his confusion is between ABX tests and AB tests, which have entirely different objectives, but both are double-blind. ABX determines whether a difference is audible, and AB determines whether the difference is audible and ranks them in terms of perceived quality.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #230
My quibbling cent and a half for your two cents: what's important really depends on the context.

If you're concerned about determining whether perceived differences in A and B are actually present in the audio (which seems to be the remit of most people around here), then an ABX test is clearly the way to go. They're not measuring preference, since that's not what they're designed to do, any more than you'd use a thermometer to take someone's pulse (much less to determine whether they have a headache or not). That doesn't make them useless, it makes them a specific tool for a specific task. Whether an ABX test is useful to you is determined by how useful that task is to you. If you're testing for what "most people" enjoy, then obviously your testing methodology is going to be different.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #231
I'm guessing that EveAnnaHatesMyAmps read some disinformation at some other site and is parroting it here. He needs to become better informed before he can post intelligently at HA.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #232
That's why I post here very little. I don't know enough to add to the discussions/debates.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #233
I don't post here that often myself (and I mostly confine myself to the foobar2000 forums when I do), but I think that this is probably the wrong approach. Instead of being afraid to say something because you don't know enough, say it anyway and be willing to learn. What's the worst that could happen? (This is mostly directed at myself, you understand.)

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #234
Hold it right there. You're fundamentally missing the point. Double-blind tests prove exactly one thing: that there is a perceptible difference between two (or more) choices, and it quantifies the likelihood that the difference was actually perceived and not just the result of random guessing.


No: it asks the audience to *identify* the difference. People experience all sorts of things which they can't say they're aware of at a conscious level, and yet it alters their behavior. If their behavior is altered in a statistically significant and repeatable way, then there is a perceived difference (at the sensory level) whether they can state it or not.

If you played some music and videotaped the people listening to it, and while listening to B the people consistently moved (tapped toes, bobbed heads) more frequently (in a way that was unlikely by chance) as when listening to A, there is a significant objective difference between A and B. If people get up and dance to A but not to B, there's a difference.

Whether they can state the difference doesn't matter.



Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #235
If people get up and dance to A but not to B, there's a difference.
Ah, so we're measuring(?) danceability now, are we....?
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #236
No: it asks the audience to *identify* the difference.
Incorrect. Double-blind tests are used, in scientific language, to invalidate the null hypothesis. In real-world language, that's roughly what I said: to provide statistical evidence for a difference between two or more things. Double-blind tests do not require the audience to identify anything. It's the tester that confirms or denies whether a difference existed.

Quote
If you played some music and videotaped the people listening to it, and while listening to B the people consistently moved (tapped toes, bobbed heads) more frequently (in a way that was unlikely by chance) as when listening to A, there is a significant objective difference between A and B.
How are you defining a single trial here? Are you playing two tracks, one after the other, while varying the order of A and B? There's no testing methodology listed, so I cannot confirm that what you've described is a valid double-blind test.

You've got a very skewed view of what double-blind testing means, and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep further disinformation off this board.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #237
My two cents: Double-blind ABX tests are useless because they're aren't measuring what's important.


That's your first mistake - ABX tests don't measure anything. All they can tell is whether or not two things sound different. If ABX tests measured anything, they would measure how much things sound different, but they don't do that. They don't even try.

If sounding different was a glass of water, ABX tests could not tell how full the glass was. All they can do is tell you that the glass has something between a bit of condensation in in it and full.

Quote
It doesn't matter if a person can identify whether X is A or B.


ABX tests don't require people to identify whether X is A or B. All they require people to do is guess whether they think X sounds more like A or B, given that X is either A or B.

Quote
What matters is how much pleasure they derive from A or B.


What does it mean if people get more pleasure from A or B, but yet they can't hear any difference between A and B?

Obviously, it means that any difference in pleasure that they receive does not come from any audible difference between A and B.

That can be a very definate real world situation, but it is a completely different matter than saying that A "sounds better" than B or vice versa, right?

How many time have you heard someone say: "I like A more than B because A sounds better than B", or "Buy this, it sounds better"?

An ABX test can help determine the truth of those two statements. You do know that it is not a given that everything everybody says is exactly true, right?

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #238
Instead of being afraid to say something because you don't know enough, say it anyway and be willing to learn. What's the worst that could happen? (This is mostly directed at myself, you understand.)



If your posts are too stupid, we trace your IP address  back to where you work or live and dispatch the men in black helicopters with black suits and big fearsome-looking weapons! ;-)

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #239
ABX tests don't measure anything. All they can tell is whether or not two things sound different. If ABX tests measured anything, they would measure how much things sound different, but they don't do that. They don't even try.
I'm not quite sure I'd word things that way. They do "measure" (or maybe "calculate" would be better here) the statistical likelihood that two things sound different.


Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #241
Just to chime in on this continuing dialog, can we please stop throwing out audiophiles buying $2000 cables?  Sure, there are guys that do that, but they are not the norm.  Also, I don't think I have ever met an audiophile who would object to a controlled, double blind test.



If you need to 'meet' them, simply peruse the Audio Asylum or Stereophile forums.  There really are audiophiles who believe DBTs 'don't work'.






Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #242
My two cents: Double-blind ABX tests are useless because they're aren't measuring what's important.


That's your first mistake - ABX tests don't measure anything.


Sure they do.  They literally measure the subject's success at identifying A and B. That is the raw data that comes out of an ABX: number of correct identifications.

btw, I second 2bdecided's idea of an entry test.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #243
A useful blind test would be to have a person enter in on a keypad how much they're enjoying the music (say on a 1-5 scale) from time to time. Whether they were listening to A or B wouldn't be known to them. Over time, if their scores indicated they were significantly happier when listening to A than B, then there is both a difference between A and B *for that person* and A is preferable.

We have such a test already.  While I'm surprised others have not told you this, I'm not all that surprised that you don't know about it, based on the level of understanding of blind testing you've demonstrated so far.

Audiophiles hear things that irritate them that most people can't or aren't aware of.

Sure, and in many instances they only think they hear things that irritate them.  Without a double-blind test you really can't know if you're mind is playing tricks on you, regardless of how discriminating you think you are.

That said, I can hear the difference between my stereo speakers and my computer speakers.

...and you can probably ABX them; I know I can with mine.  So?

When I played sax, I could tell the difference between types of reeds and whether the ligature was tightened on the top or bottom.

Yep, and I can tell the difference between the sound of various electric guitar pickups.  It doesn't mean that I can hear the difference between a listening environment with and without magic rocks, and I doubt you can either.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #244
But what isn't clear is what you think you have discovered that is evidence of me "making up" my reports of my blind comparisons as you now allege.

Sure, I'll help you out
Quote
Posted by  Analog Scott    (A  ) on August 5, 2002 at 17:45:08
In Reply to: Are you serious?? posted by BrassMonkey on August 5, 2002 at 09:20:02:

I think it would be interesting if you were to document this in double blind listening tests and show it to the folks who are in the "objectivist" camp. I've never bothered with such tests myself.

What exactly does the last sentence mean? Is the word "double" your escape clause? Why did you not mention that you had performed single blind tests right then and there. Or anywhere in the next few years? Did you forget? Or had you not concocted the story yet to justify buying your audio jewelry?
Is it that I am a "makeup artist" and you are simply amused by the pun?

Yes and yes. Given your propensities.
What is it that you think you have uncovered?

You tell us  . Let's pretend Scott did "blind" tests at RSL (unverifiable)  and in Hong Kong (unverifiable). Of the "home brew" variety (your words).
Quote
Posted by  Analog Scott    (A  ) on August 20, 2006 at 13:23:54
In Reply to: It’s still better than sighted listening tests posted by Caymus on August 20, 2006 at 11:46:08:

I am not against home brewed blind tests. I worry that some may think they have more validity or offer more universal truth than they actually do. I am not convinced at all that for the purposes of audiophilia that home brewed blind tests are at all better than sighted ones.

Quote
Posted by  Analog Scott    (A  ) on August 23, 2006 at 10:48:20
In Reply to: "Until it passes peer review in a scientific journal it's just another anecdote" posted by Richard BassNut Greene on August 23, 2006 at 10:15:02:

Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk. There is no inbetween. That some "objectivists" would represent their anecdotes as scientifically valid despite the utter and complete lack of peer review says more about their disregard for real science in the name of a cause than anything it tells us about audio.

"Add this evidence to other evidence collected from other experiments to reach a reasonable conclusion."

No. You just get more junk piled on old junk. If you want to see a real big pile of such junk look into ufo sightings and alien abductions. Ask any real scientist the value of "evidence" that has not been published in a real peer reviewed scientific journal and they will all tell you the same thing. Nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Nothing x 10,000 = nothing. The math is real simple.

Is your dilemma a bit clearer now?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #245
But what isn't clear is what you think you have discovered that is evidence of me "making up" my reports of my blind comparisons as you now allege.

Sure, I'll help you out
Quote
Posted by  Analog Scott    (A  ) on August 5, 2002 at 17:45:08
In Reply to: Are you serious?? posted by BrassMonkey on August 5, 2002 at 09:20:02:

I think it would be interesting if you were to document this in double blind listening tests and show it to the folks who are in the "objectivist" camp. I've never bothered with such tests myself.

What exactly does the last sentence mean? Is the word "double" your escape clause? Why did you not mention that you had performed single blind tests right then and there. Or anywhere in the next few years? Did you forget? Or had you not concocted the story yet to justify buying your audio jewelry?
Is it that I am a "makeup artist" and you are simply amused by the pun?

Yes and yes. Given your propensities.
What is it that you think you have uncovered?

You tell us  . Let's pretend Scott did "blind" tests at RSL (unverifiable)  and in Hong Kong (unverifiable). Of the "home brew" variety (your words).
Quote
Posted by  Analog Scott    (A  ) on August 20, 2006 at 13:23:54
In Reply to: It’s still better than sighted listening tests posted by Caymus on August 20, 2006 at 11:46:08:

I am not against home brewed blind tests. I worry that some may think they have more validity or offer more universal truth than they actually do. I am not convinced at all that for the purposes of audiophilia that home brewed blind tests are at all better than sighted ones.

Quote
Posted by  Analog Scott    (A  ) on August 23, 2006 at 10:48:20
In Reply to: "Until it passes peer review in a scientific journal it's just another anecdote" posted by Richard BassNut Greene on August 23, 2006 at 10:15:02:

Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk. There is no inbetween. That some "objectivists" would represent their anecdotes as scientifically valid despite the utter and complete lack of peer review says more about their disregard for real science in the name of a cause than anything it tells us about audio.

"Add this evidence to other evidence collected from other experiments to reach a reasonable conclusion."

No. You just get more junk piled on old junk. If you want to see a real big pile of such junk look into ufo sightings and alien abductions. Ask any real scientist the value of "evidence" that has not been published in a real peer reviewed scientific journal and they will all tell you the same thing. Nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Nothing x 10,000 = nothing. The math is real simple.

Is your dilemma a bit clearer now?

cheers,

AJ



"My dilemma?" So because I understand the limited merits of my single blind tests, something that I have been nothing less than clear about on this thread, that is evidence that I didn't do them at all? I don't see the logic in that. However I do see the desperation in it. I mean all those hours you spent digging in audio forums through my posts throughout the years..... You had to come up with something didn't you? ::chuckle:: So the admission that I have never done DBTs was the big "gotcha" eh? Hmmmm. I think I have been more than clear about the fact that my blind comparisons have all been single blind. My humility about the scientific validity of my single blind tests and my opinions about the relative merits of home brewed blind tests in general in the eyes of science and the admission that I have never done DBTs (something I have never claimed to have done) proves that I "made up" my blind comparisons?


I think your best argument was the pun.
thanks for the chuckle though.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #246
But what isn't clear is what you think you have discovered that is evidence of me "making up" my reports of my blind comparisons as you now allege.

Sure, I'll help you out
Quote
Posted by  Analog Scott    (A  ) on August 5, 2002 at 17:45:08
In Reply to: Are you serious?? posted by BrassMonkey on August 5, 2002 at 09:20:02:

I think it would be interesting if you were to document this in double blind listening tests and show it to the folks who are in the "objectivist" camp. I've never bothered with such tests myself.

What exactly does the last sentence mean? Is the word "double" your escape clause? Why did you not mention that you had performed single blind tests right then and there. Or anywhere in the next few years? Did you forget? Or had you not concocted the story yet to justify buying your audio jewelry?
Is it that I am a "makeup artist" and you are simply amused by the pun?

Yes and yes. Given your propensities.
What is it that you think you have uncovered?

You tell us  . Let's pretend Scott did "blind" tests at RSL (unverifiable)  and in Hong Kong (unverifiable). Of the "home brew" variety (your words).
Quote
Posted by  Analog Scott    (A  ) on August 20, 2006 at 13:23:54
In Reply to: It’s still better than sighted listening tests posted by Caymus on August 20, 2006 at 11:46:08:

I am not against home brewed blind tests. I worry that some may think they have more validity or offer more universal truth than they actually do. I am not convinced at all that for the purposes of audiophilia that home brewed blind tests are at all better than sighted ones.

Quote
Posted by  Analog Scott    (A  ) on August 23, 2006 at 10:48:20
In Reply to: "Until it passes peer review in a scientific journal it's just another anecdote" posted by Richard BassNut Greene on August 23, 2006 at 10:15:02:

Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk. There is no inbetween. That some "objectivists" would represent their anecdotes as scientifically valid despite the utter and complete lack of peer review says more about their disregard for real science in the name of a cause than anything it tells us about audio.

"Add this evidence to other evidence collected from other experiments to reach a reasonable conclusion."

No. You just get more junk piled on old junk. If you want to see a real big pile of such junk look into ufo sightings and alien abductions. Ask any real scientist the value of "evidence" that has not been published in a real peer reviewed scientific journal and they will all tell you the same thing. Nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Nothing x 10,000 = nothing. The math is real simple.

Is your dilemma a bit clearer now?

cheers,

AJ



Not clear at all. In all that digging through my old posts over the years on various forums you found what? Let's look at the quotes you cite without your color comentary and see what they mean.


"I think it would be interesting if you were to document this in double blind listening tests and show it to the folks who are in the "objectivist" camp. I've never bothered with such tests myself."

"I am not against home brewed blind tests. I worry that some may think they have more validity or offer more universal truth than they actually do. I am not convinced at all that for the purposes of audiophilia that home brewed blind tests are at all better than sighted ones"

"Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk. There is no inbetween. That some "objectivists" would represent their anecdotes as scientifically valid despite the utter and complete lack of peer review says more about their disregard for real science in the name of a cause than anything it tells us about audio."

"No. You just get more junk piled on old junk. If you want to see a real big pile of such junk look into ufo sightings and alien abductions. Ask any real scientist the value of "evidence" that has not been published in a real peer reviewed scientific journal and they will all tell you the same thing. Nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Nothing x 10,000 = nothing. The math is real simple"



So in a nut shell you found that I have never done double blind tests,  I'm not against home brewed tests but think that some audiophiles may give them more credibility than they deserve and that I acknowledge the lack of scientific validity and the anecdotal nature of home brewed tests. Oh and I am not sure that the home brewed blind tests are any more valuable than sighted ones.

Now let's look at my comments on this thread about my blind comparisons.



"The vast majority of my comparisons these days is between various masterings of my favorite recordings. No question that different masterings sound different but which sound better? There are plenty of "beliefs," rules of thumb," and other influences to make me biased going into any such comparison. Soooo I like to do my first comparisons undr blind conditions. this will give me an unbiased preference. Then I will compare under sighted conditions but with the knowledge of what my preference was under blind conditions. In the end whatever mastering is chosen will be listened to under sighted conditions. That is why my final auditions are also done under sighted conditions. But at least it is done with the full knowledge of what my unbiased pereference was. IMO that will probably have some effect on my biases. "

"Blind tests for the ARC equipment.
First one was a careful single blind level matched comparison done at Rogers Sound Lab. It was between the ARC SP 11 and the ARC D115 Mk II vs. My Yamaha 100 watt rack system integrated amp. speakers were Martin Logan CLS's, Sourse was a Sony CD player (don't remember the model) and a Well Tempered TT/arm. I don't remember the cartridge. It was a preference comparison using several different titles from my personal CDs and LPs. I participated in two sessions of five trials. My friend participated in the same. In a total of 20 trials the result was 20 times the ARC equipment was prefered. I repeated the tests at home with the Martin Logans and the Vandersteen sub. We did five trials each. same results."

" i actually did do a blind comparison between my previous speakers, the Martin Logan CLSs and the Apogee Duetta Signatures. That was a royal pain in the ass."

"I did a series of single blind comparisons in Hong Kong between the Forsell, The Rockport Sirius III, and the Clearaudio Master reference all mounted with matching top of the line Clear Audio cartridriges. The system was The Top of the line Rockport speakers and MBL SS amplification. Over the course of about five hours four of us participated in 5 trials between the Rockport and the Forsell, five trials between the Forsell and the Clear Audio and 5 trials between the Rockport and the Clearaudio. However I was the only one who did mine blind. I picked the Forsell every time in both trials with the Forsell. I picked the Rockport 4 times in the comparison with the Clearaudio. Afterwards I did some comaprisons sighted. Same results. Interestingly the other three, under sighted conditions all picked the Rockport every time."

"Did five trials with the Aurios under the sub and under the TT. I quit afte five trials because the difference was just too obvious. Not so much so under the preamp. If there is a difference it is too subtle for me. sold those Aurios."

"yes they are anecdotes.


details.... the first comparison between the ARC and the Yamaha... single blind technically but the dealer was in the other room switching the cables. The Hong Kong comparisons were done with me writing down my choices and the shop owner writing down which was A and which was B. We switched up between every trial with a coin flip to determine A and B. what else do you want to know? "


QUOTE (pdq @ Sep 23 2009, 16:43)
@analog scott: All we have here is that the two amplifiers sounded different, and that you preferred the sound of the ARC. It doesn't tell us which was the more accurate, only that the distortion, or lack thereof, of one of the amplifiers was more pleasing to you.


"Yep. I completely agree. And it is anecdotal to boot. Blind protocols in and of themselves do not make a home brewed test scientifically valid. "




So what do we find here, that none of my tests were double blind, that I acknowledge the anecdotal nature of them and that I also do sighted tests because I think they are also meaningful, as meaningful as my home brewed bind comparisons actually. And I acknowledge the lack of scientific validity of home brewed tests.
What was my dilemma again?







Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #247
Sorry but scientifically speaking you have peer reviewed evidence and you have junk.

No, there's peer-reviewable evidence and there's junk.  Anyway, do continue

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #248
Audiophiles, golden ear's, and snake oil peddlers are against DBT's becuase that is the final outcome that proves them wrong. One can prove the high end wrong with measurements and as I have done with pictures of the internal hardware but they will ignore that, when they fail a DBT they can no longer ignore that and that is what makes them act like children.

Why do so many audiophiles think everything sounds different

Reply #249
What was my dilemma again?

The need to double respond to my post .
You had clearly forgotten about your circa 2002 admission on never performing blind tests - when you decided to make up the whole Yamaha/ARC blind comp at RSL tale circa 2005(?). But that's ok. We know you like to just make up stuff in a futile attempt to support beliefs . What you have also admitted, is that even if your tale had been true, it would have been completely invalid in determining anything related to the soundfield.
So here is your chance to come clean audiophile Scott. What is the real reason you bought all that audio jewelry and VPI brick type doo-dahs in your listed system?
We know that it was not due to any perceived improvement in the soundfield from any blind listening tests whatsoever...so what was it?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer